- #106
Smurf
- 442
- 3
Or anti-socialists.Rabid said:Why would this position be limited to conservatives?
Excellent come back, btw.TRCSF said:Naw.
The U.S. is using homicide bombers.
Or anti-socialists.Rabid said:Why would this position be limited to conservatives?
Excellent come back, btw.TRCSF said:Naw.
The U.S. is using homicide bombers.
But, it is the alleged conservatives, you know the Republicans, that are doing this.deckart said:You have a point, because if one is found to be against the government the patriot acts could kick in against a common citizen. That is dangerous and unconstitutional. A fundamental reason why we maintain the right to bear arms and overthrow an unconstitional government. This why I remain conservative and anti-socialist. (as apposed to anti-social )
loseyourname said:Is it really necessary to make fun of a guy as he alludes to horrible things he's seen that he doesn't even want to talk about?
Skyhunter said:But, it is the alleged conservatives, you know the Republicans, that are doing this.
We don't have access to the type of arms that the military can bring to bear against us. I have a military video from Iraq, showing what you would be up against. PM me if you would like me to email it to you.
Is it really necessary to make fun of a guy as he alludes to horrible things he's seen that he doesn't even want to talk abou
I apologize, the guy is Micheal Savage (I thing Randy Savage was a WWF guy lol). http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html"deckart said:I do understand what would be faced. I live in the Northwest, I'm not a militia type but if that is what it came to, these boys up here are prepared for that kind of situation. At this point these guys are seen as paranoidal wierdos but they aren't stupid and many have military experience. If there was an obvious breach of fundamentals in this country, it wouldn't go without serious resistance from within. Those guys are scary serious. People are paying attention to what's going on.
Not all conservatives are "Republican" or "Democrat". There are liberal conservatives who aren't partisan. Who is that guy on talk radio, Randy Savage (I think), who calls himself a liberal conservative? And he has over a million listeners alone.
Anttech said:Probably not, but it is also not necessary to spread lies, and nationalistic ideals of hatred. If he doesn't want to talk about it, then that's his choice and we should respected it.
but that doesn't mean we need to mock him. This isn't third grade.
The funny thing is that Bush is acting to promote the "domino effect", but not as he thought about it...Informal Logic said:2) To examine what the alternative entails, would be that the US should have stayed focused on Bin Laden, rather than illegally invading Iraq thus adding fuel to the Middle East fire.
I suspect the support for Bush and the war are from those who believe in the "containment" of Islamic terrorism by spreading democracy (like the domino theory and view of communism during the cold war). Terrorism is a result of US policies, not governing systems, and consists of angry individuals around the world, not any particular nation state. The best way to address terrorism is for the US to stop the self interested and unbalanced interference in the region (what a novel idea).
The letter laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.
No. This is were all of you go wrong. You can deter Russia and China, since they are rational agents, and are interested in their own survival and well-being. You can't deter Muslim terrorists. They are more than happy to die. If you apply game theory to them, the only rational option left for you is to kill them first. And to do that you need intelligence...Ivan Seeking said:Believe me, I understand the threat. Also, as is China today, the Russians were more of a threat than Al Qaeda could ever be.
ron damon said:No. This is were all of you go wrong. You can deter Russia and China, since they are rational agents, and are interested in their own survival and well-being. You can't deter Muslim terrorists. They are more than happy to die. If you apply game theory to them, the only rational option left for you is to kill them first. And to do that you need intelligence...
The indispensable, long-term complement of that strategy is the transformation of the Muslim world, lifting it out of the middle ages and into the modern world, a process that was supposed to be jump-started by the establishment of democracy and capitalism in Iraq and the inclusion of Turkey into the EU, something that Bush heavily lobbied for, personally calling Eurpoean heads of state, and which upset many chancelleries, contributing to the falling out over Iraq.
Before you shower me with insults, that is the main vision me and other classical liberals shared when supporting the invasion from the start; the fact that it has not gone well is something I'm willing to take responsibility for.
And before you suggest getting out of the middle east altogether, there are two practical, empirical, concrete, real reason for why it can't be done:
1) Genocide against the Jews would follow, something some of us will never allow to happen yet again.
2) Oil. The modern world needs it, and *every* industrialized nation *will* actively work to secure access and control over it. The Chinese condoning genocide in Sudan, the French supporting Saddam Hussein, or Russia backing up Iran; it is a fact of life. If you think it is evil, don't heat your home this winter, and give up motorized transportation.
Finally, for those lacking perspective, if the terrorists again hit the civilized world hard enough, draconian measures in immigration and trade would follow, resulting in the collapse of the world economy, a plunge in living conditions throughout the globe, and a return to pre-Enlightenment times.
ron damon said:The indispensable, long-term complement of that strategy is the transformation of the Muslim world, lifting it out of the middle ages and into the modern world, a process that was supposed to be jump-started by the establishment of democracy and capitalism in Iraq and the inclusion of Turkey into the EU, something that Bush heavily lobbied for, personally calling Eurpoean heads of state, and which upset many chancelleries, contributing to the falling out over Iraq.
Before you shower me with insults, that is the main vision me and other classical liberals shared when supporting the invasion from the start; the fact that it has not gone well is something I'm willing to take responsibility for.
And before you suggest getting out of the middle east altogether, there are two practical, empirical, concrete, real reason for why it can't be done:
1) Genocide against the Jews would follow, something some of us will never allow to happen yet again.
2) Oil. The modern world needs it, and *every* industrialized nation *will* actively work to secure access and control over it. The Chinese condoning genocide in Sudan, the French supporting Saddam Hussein, or Russia backing up Iran; it is a fact of life. If you think it is evil, don't heat your home this winter, and give up motorized transportation.
Finally, for those lacking perspective, if the terrorists again hit the civilized world hard enough, draconian measures in immigration and trade would follow, resulting in the collapse of the world economy, a plunge in living conditions throughout the globe, and a return to pre-Enlightenment times.
vanesch said:Instead of "Europeanising Turkey", this business is going to wreck havoc to the entire European construction.
vanesch said:But that's the point: it WAS OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS GOING TO FAIL.
Racism, and decpetiveYou can't deter Muslim terrorists. They are more than happy to die. If you apply game theory to them, the only rational option left for you is to kill them first. And to do that you need intelligence..
Fact, and from percepective.Instead of "Europeanising Turkey", this business is going to wreck havoc to the entire European construction.
Oh I get the irony... I just wonder if you do:Ahh the irony, does anyone here realize that were I one of the pile of angry Leftists that clutter this thread, I'd started this reply by calling vanesch a racist for his/her remarks on Turkey?
ron damon said:Why? Are you against Turkey in Europe? I really appreciate a (sober) French perspective.
Smurf said:Oh I get the irony... I just wonder if you do:
Macho Man Randy Savage and the lovely Elizabeth Oooohhh Yeeaahhh!deckart said:I apologize, the guy is Micheal Savage (I thing Randy Savage was a WWF guy lol). http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html"
Savage called Arabs "non-humans" and "racist, fascist bigots"; asserted that Americans would like to "drop a nuclear weapon" on any Arab country; and that "these people" in the Middle East "need to be forcibly converted to Christianity" in order to "turn them into human beings."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405140003Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They don't even care which one it would be. I can guarantee you -- I don't need to go to Mr. Schmuck [pollster John] Zogby and ask him his opinion. I don't need anyone's opinion. I'll give you my opinion, because I got a better stethoscope than those fools. It's one man's opinion based upon my own analysis. The most -- I tell you right now -- the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one...
He calls liberalism a mental disorder
I'm not absolutely against it. The problem is not Turkey, the problem is Europe, which is suffering a huge identity crisis. What's Europe to be ? I would think that Europe is what has been rooted in Greek-Latin civilisation. Why ? Not because it is "superior" or something like that, simply because it is the common ground of much of what European nations have made what they are. Of course the spread of Christianity did a lot to "preserve this unity" and that's why some think that Europe should be based upon Christianity, but the roots are to be found earlier.ron damon said:Why? Are you against Turkey in Europe? I really appreciate a (sober) French perspective.
Turkey could join, if they "Europeanise" much, much more.
I agree with that, and I found it quite interesting to be labelled some kind of "racist" because I would be against Turkey joining the EU, which would somehow imply that the EU is "heaven" and the "untermensch" have to stay out of it. The EU has a certain vision on things, values, ways of thinking, etc... which have a common historical origin. The Turks have ANOTHER vision. Now, it is up to them to decide if they prefer to switch visions, put their own historic civilisation behind them and try to be "European", in which case they can join (much, much later than now, when the switch has been completed). Or they can stick with their own civilisation, in which case they don't really "fit" within the EU. Not because their view of things is *worse* but because it is *different*. If you like to play football, you join a football club. If you like to play tennis, you shouldn't join the football club! That doesn't mean that football is better than tennis.Anttech said:Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"
First of all, "modernisation" and "advancing" in your mind means "adapting a Western style of living" and not all people over there are convinced that that is a positive evolution. The very fact of not being able to see that makes you blind to the big mistakes you are committing over there. Although SOME parts of western living style (cars, radios, cellular telephones...) are accepted and desired over there, the core values ARE NOT. "freedom of religion", "women's rights", "democracy" etc... are very discutable values in the Arab world.ron damon said:But why? Are they beyond modernization? What fundamental reason prevents them from advancing? 100 years ago nobody saw in China, Japan (~150), Korea or India any potential, yet all of them flourished under (diverse) direct intervention by western powers...
I think you miss the point. Turkey WANTS to join the EU. The 'E' in EU stands for European. There's two concepts of Europe: geographical, and political. The only one that has any real value is the latter, and that IS the EU. So you can't join the EU and NOT "europeanise". This doesn't mean Turkey has to suddenly embrace binge drinking and football hooliganism, or start eating escargot and making pretentious films with gratutious pornographic images. It just means they have to qualify for a club they wish to join.Anttech said:Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"
Turkey WANTS to join the EU.
Thats a bit simplistic, There is also a lot of economical benefits.There's two concepts of Europe: geographical, and political.
I agree.. I didnt say they should join, but that doesn't rule out trade agreements. These trade agreements would boost the economy in the south east of Europe (and visa versa).So you can't join the EU and NOT "europeanise".
For Turkey, read: democratically elected government of. You get the economical benefits of being in the EU by... joining the EU. You can't get breakdown recovery unless you subscribe to the club.Anttech said:Proof! I don't think the people want this, turkey would much rather be itself and have the ECONOMICAL benefits of being in the EU.
I'm not sure that actually follows from what I said, but yes, it was simplistic. Not oversimplistic in context, though.Anttech said:Thats a bit simplistic, There is also a lot of economical benefits.
Same problems apply, hence Turkey could not join the EC.Anttech said:I agree.. I didnt say they should join, but that doesn't rule out trade agreements. These trade agreements would boost the economy in the south east of Europe (and visa versa).
The first one - that Turkey (see above) has the most interest in joining the UE, so it is not a question of the EU imposing "europeanisation". In fact, some member states would rather they didn't "europeanise" just for the sake of getting into the EU.Anttech said:What point is it I missed?
I also think that a large part of the motivation of several countries to join the EU is the economic benefit they think it will bring them. But this can only be true up to a certain level: if the economic differences are TOO big, it will create problems. Nevertheless, I think close economic cooperation is in everybody's interest, but that's exactly what a partnership would establish.Anttech said:Proof! I don't think the people want this, turkey would much rather be itself and have the ECONOMICAL benefits of being in the EU.
For Turkey, read: democratically elected government of.
The first one - that Turkey (see above) has the most interest in joining the UE, so it is not a question of the EU imposing "europeanisation". In fact, some member states would rather they didn't "europeanise" just for the sake of getting into the EU.
And I'm sure you understand how democracy works, whereby the people elect a party (one of about 50 in Turkey) to represent them, govern them and make political decisions. No, not everyone, maybe not anything close to a majority, will have their view on joining the EU represented. That's democracy for you, the idealogy we seem to like imposing on other countries.Anttech said:El Hom.. I am sure that you understand that a representative Democratically elected government does not represent the views of everyone in the Country that it governs!
I think you did. No-one expects Turkey to suddenly go all continental. No-one even demands that Turkey meet the criteria to satisfy the EU that they may become a member state. You make it sound unreasonable that Turkey become more European to the extent that they may join the EU, but: no-one's forcing them to join; if you want to join the scouts you have to wear the uniform. It's as simple as that.Anttech said:I didnt miss any point, I believe that the PEOPLE of turkey don't particulay want to join the EU.. they just want the economical beniefts. the GOVERMENT may want to, but i wasnt referring to that.
As a people, I don't see how much unwanted change is necessary beyond adhering to new regulation. Like I said, no-one's demanding they suddenly become like Europeans as people. The EU requirements largely pertain to the government. No-one is asking the Turkish equilent of Joe Bloggs to recognise Cyprus - but the government must do. And I'm sure people who have been tortured by Turkish authorities aren't going to see the zero-tolerance on torture as giving into "Europeanisation". And I'm sure Turkish women aren't going to think that being granted equal rights is a comprimise too many either. Or does 'Turkish people' just mean men to you? Perhaps your statistics railing against the unrepresentative views of the government are unrepresentative of ALL of the Turkish people, of all religions and both genders.Anttech said:Thats your point of view. I don't think the PEOPLE of turkey want to join, and they (the people) don't want to "Europeanise". The Goverment as you are referring to may want to join the EU. I fail to see how you came to this from my post: EU imposing "europeanisation"
So rather than comprimise and negotiation, you suggest Turkey do as they please and everyone else bend over backwards to boost their economy, an economy of a country with sexual inequality, religious segregation, and institutional corruption? Forgive me, but I'm with the EU if they don't quite see it your way.Anttech said:My other point of Trade aggrements is just that, create a New Trade agrement with them, so the south east of europe and Turkey can trade better together and boost both economies.
I am not against Mexico becoming the 51st state. I think most people in Louisiana would agree with me. Then they wouldn't be perceived as the poorest state in the Union:rofl:vanesch said:But to all those Americans who think that Europe should take in Turkey, I ask: When is Mexico going to join the US ?
People read too much into the failed constitution. The constitution was ultimately rejected by referenda, not by inter-state politics. It was the public who nayed it. The failure on the EU member states' part was putting any form of a constitution to public vote at a time when the EU was changing and, in terms of the member states' international politics, fragmenting. You don't honestly think a reasonable proportional of the people who voted actually read the damn thing do you? It was protest. It was not politics.Skyhunter said:I also agree that the
European union, as demonstrated by the failure to ratify a constitution, needs more work on the unity of the current members, before adding more and diverse nations to the mix.
I feel the exact same about you!While I get the impression you're deliberately misinterpreting me,
So rather than comprimise and negotiation, you suggest Turkey do as they please and everyone else bend over backwards to boost their economy, an economy of a country with sexual inequality, religious segregation, and institutional corruption? Forgive me, but I'm with the EU if they don't quite see it your way.
I think you did. No-one expects Turkey to suddenly go all continental. No-one even demands that Turkey meet the criteria to satisfy the EU that they may become a member state. You make it sound unreasonable that Turkey become more European to the extent that they may join the EU, but: no-one's forcing them to join; if you want to join the scouts you have to wear the uniform. It's as simple as that.
anttech said:Turkey is an acient civilisation, they have as much heritage as the greeks do or the Romans. But that heritage is not "European" based, so why would they want to "Europeanise?" The Fact is the people don't want to, understandably, and infact they couldnt. Its like asking the Indians to "Europeanise"
I am not disputing there government wants too.. But I never referred to there goverment.I won't bother arguing with you, becuase we have no arguement... I aggree with most of what you were saying, yet you seem to think I dont...I think you miss the point. Turkey WANTS to join the EU.
Hmmm...sounds familiar...Oh yea they are going to vote on another one Saturday.El Hombre Invisible said:Of course, a pointless and comprimised constitution rushed through is no use to anyone anyway. But that's not why it was rejected.
Skyhunter said:Hmmm...sounds familiar...Oh yea they are going to vote on another one Saturday.